Contact your city council members!

“Obviously, the suggestion [to remove fluoride] would be a dramatic change from the way we presently operate, I’m sure the manager and his staff will take it under advisement and come back with a recommendation.”

At Large Council MemberSteve SchewelPhone(919) 560-4396, ext. 10273steve.schewel@durhamnc.gov

Mr. Sturmer,I admire very much your passion for this issue and your persistence in the cause; however, I am persuaded by our water staff and the state’s water staff that thelevel of flouridation we do in Durham is, on balance, beneficial to our citizens and is a critical public health benefit. Thanks for writing.Best wishes,Steve Schewel

Steve,

Thank you for your candid response.With all due respect, is there a specific study you can reference that really persuaded you of the critical benefit we receive from this practice?I find it interesting that our own documents state that fluoride causes fluorosis, and the state dental adviser Kevin Bucholtz even admitted his own daughter has fluorisis, but yet this remains a critical health benefit.

Would you be willing to comment on that?

Thank you,

Corey Sturmer

Corey,Thanks for writing.No, I can’t cite a specific scientific study, if that’s what you mean.But you were able to read the evidence presented to our city council bythe state health department folks and our own water department staff who cited what they believe to be the best science on this. I trust them.Best wishes,Steve

At Large Council MemberEugene A. BrownPhone (919) 688-9314eugene.brown@durhamnc.gov

At Large Council MemberDiane CatottiPhone (919) 560-4396, ext. 10278diane.catotti@durhamnc.gov

Vicki Westbrook, the Water plant’s spokeswoman also offered her rebuttal which quotes the CDC’s proclamation:

“[Water Fluoridation] is one of the top 10 advances in public health that’s happened since the 1900s.”

-Vicki Westbrook

The City’s official response was released via the Durham County online archival site. Director of the Department of Water Management Don Greeley was the one who furnished this letter:

[Editor’s Note]

The practice of Fluoridating public water has been prevalent since the 1950′s, and the only reasoning ever given is a nebulous claim made by higher agencies of government that this product prevents cavities. When confronted with the facts, the EPA revised their recommended “optimal” levels of fluoride, but continue to ignore the concept that citizens are not patients of the water management department.

Do you remember consenting to the city’s dental health plan? I sure don’t.

I am perfectly capable of preventing my own cavities, as I am sure you who are reading this are too. The city actually thinks they are providing a service (mind you on the taxpayer’s dollar!) to those who do not have “access.” Those are Vicki Westbrook’s words, not mine. The question is, access to what? A tooth brush? Mecklenburg county, North Carolina reportedly saved over 100,000 dollars per year simply by REDUCING the amount of fluoride they put into the water(Link). If the city truly wanted to be do- gooders, could they not do better by use the money spent on fluoride to provide toothbrushes and toothpaste to those who don’t have “access?”

There is a terrible commode flushing water problem in the Durham County Jail from 5th -7th floor. The county official refuse to do anything. It’s terrible living and can spread disease amongst the inmates.